Forum:User deleting edits without discussing
I added some info to the Unobtanium entry, and someone keeps deleting it, what I added is supported by the same source that was previously used, and is relevant. Your edits basically reaffirmed what was already stated, and the article is now fine in its current state. OZZY 03:17, March 26, 2011 (UTC) In your opinion. My edits clarified a point that the name is not just about its rarity, but can also be used to describe a desired but lacking property. In this instance, Ozzy has correctly reverted because the comment does not need to be expanded to include the example. The entry need only be succinct. --IWantheUltimateChange 04:35, March 26, 2011 (UTC) The comment without the second meaning of the word is half an answer, why not go all the way and just say "see link". 04:56. The entry provides the bare, basic information, and if people want to read more about it, we have a link that they can go to. That system works fine, and eliminates the need to go for the extremes of providing only the link, or describing everything here. OZZY 05:17, March 26, 2011 (UTC) "and eliminates the need to go for the extremes of providing only the link, or describing everything here." Neither of which is done by mentioning the second meaning of the word, it is certainly not describing everything. BK21 27-03-2011 13:33 By "second meaning", do you mean what you put in your previous edit? - "The name "unobtanium" can be used to describe hard to get properties, such as temperature resistance". If so, I would argue that it is not a "second meaning", but an example of the information already there. As UC said above, an example does not need to be included in the entry for it to get its message across. OZZY 13:42, March 26, 2011 (UTC) One meaning refers to a hard to get material, the other refers to a desired property, you can have an easy to get property but not have easy (or any) access to the material that provides it, these are two completely different concepts, and can be exclusive, and in the case of Avatar, it is clearly refering to both meanings since 1 it is hard to get, you have to go to another solar system, and 2 it has properties that no other material could have provided, just refering to the fact its hard to get to is as I said half of an answer and is not covered by what was already there. Certainly not by what amounts to "It's hard to get" BK21 27-03-2011 15:38. Here is the entry, as it is now: The name "unobtanium" is an old engineering joke, and can be applied to any rare or hard to find material that has the properties needed to fulfil a given design, but is unobtainable. Both of your "meanings" are already stated there. The sections can be applied to any rare or hard to find material and is unobtainable relates to the "hard to get" factor, and the section that has the properties needed to fulfil a given design relates to the desired properties of such materials. OZZY 08:00, March 27, 2011 (UTC) Come on, no both meanings are not already stated there, that is clearly on about access to the material, not the properties themselves being unobtainable, pay more attention to the grammar, I know you're in Austraila, but you do speak the same basic language as us. BK21 27-03-2011 14:25. That's got to be one of the funniest things I've read in ages. I'm guessing that you're American. Anyway, I see what you're getting at with the whole "access to material" thing, but the entry as it is now is pretty much as relevant as possible to Avatar, as the material in the film is hard to gain access to and it has desired properties. Any further definitions would therefore be irrelevant, which is why we provide the link (explaining such other definitions) to an exterior source. OZZY 05:14, March 28, 2011 (UTC) British actually, I don't think they are irrelevant, maybe to the story presented in the film, but prior to the story there would have to have been a time where it was considerered unobtainable WRT properties (before humans set foot on Pandora and discovered the material) also the Trivia section doesn't have to relate to only what is seen in Avatar, there are other notes about its appearance in other places, eg Terminator, and in the Activist survival guide. BK21 28-03-2011 09:39 The Survival Guide entry is about a mistake in the text, and is a relevant point of interest. The Terminator entry is relevant as it relates to a similar concept in another James Cameron film. Your point about what would've been the case prior to the story is speculation (technically, as we have no information about the Avatar universe prior to events described in the game, and none of the information provided relates to the naming of unobtanium), which we can't include in articles as per the guidelines we use for editing. My basic point is that we have already provided the relevant information, and that if people are interested, they can follow the link for more. OZZY 09:30, March 28, 2011 (UTC) You're right it is speculation, but I think it is fair speculation, as the unobtanium isnt found on earth, otherwise why spend all that effort in going there, even if it was rare, it's properties would be known about, so it wouldnt be unobtainable in that sense, and the wiki does point out that the creation of it was a bit of a fluke, so it would be reasonable to say it wasn't known about until setting foot on pandora or at least sending a probe. BK21 28-03-2011 18:31